I think there is a need for one more person. This is how I would define
first person pov and third person pov:
Third person is a single history pov that requires the observation of an
event whose existence does not correlate with the existence of the
observer. This is the classical, objective, scientific pov.
First person is a single history pov that requires the observation of an
event whose existence correlates with the existence of the observer.
Thus in a Quantum suicide experiement the bomb never goes off from the
first person pov but almost always goes off from the third person pov.
The additional required person(s) is/are the plural, in which one would
be aware of all the histories. There may even be a need for a first
person plural and a third person plural: in other words, even in the
plural our observation of multiple histories may be affected if the
event we are observing bears on our own existence. This is the pov in
experiments involving quantum superposition.
Tom, your definition of 3rd person is more like my definition of 3rd
person plural.
First person is a single history and corresponds to: "I" AND "the bomb
does not go off.".
Third person is a single history and corresponds to "I" AND the bomb
goes off/probability{bomb goes off}.
Plural person is multiple histories regarding the bomb, and corresponds
to "I" AND ("the bomb goes off" inclusive OR "the bomb does not go
off".) = "I"
George Levy
Tom Caylor wrote:
>Bruno,
>
>I have a couple of random thoughts, but I hope they are not too
>incoherent (decoherent?) for someone to understand and see if it leads
>anywhere.
>
>First, it seems that the comp distinction between 1st and 3rd person
>point-of-view can be expressed roughly as OR vs. AND respectively. In
>other words, from the 1st person pov, I am either in one history OR the
>other (say Moscow or Washington). From the 3rd person pov, someone is
>both in one history AND the other history at the same time (perhaps
>like quantum superposition?). Now roughly when we OR independent
>probabilities we use ADDITION, and when we AND them we use
>MULTIPLICATION. This rings a bell with Godel's sufficiently rich set
>of axioms. It similarly rings a bell with the prime numbers. Could
>there be a connection here through this means?
>
>Secondly, conversely to your thoughts, perhaps given the above
>connection to help out, could the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
>supply the elimination of white rabbits from comp?
>
>Tom
>
>
>>
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Apr 13 2006 - 18:47:19 PDT